Township of Blandford-Blenheim voted against a plan amendment and zone change in regards to Catana Estates during its regular Council meeting on Wednesday, April 16, 2025.
The roughly 97.1 acre property, known as Catana Estates, is currently zoned as “General Agricultural Zone (A2),” and includes two distinct building clusters.
The main cluster includes a large single-detached dwelling (built in 2015), two personal greenhouses, and a special events facility (often used for weddings and such), and the original farm cluster contains several older agricultural accessory buildings.
The special events facility consists of three 300 metre square tents, and a 60 metre square washroom building. It also features landscaping and a grass area for parking with space for approximately 100 vehicles. The remainder of the property is currently made up of cash crops (space rented out to other farmers, as well as the Catana’s growing their own florals), maintaining its agricultural use.
Last year, a complaint was made in regards to the property and in September, the Township’s by-law officer visited Catana Estates, and determined that the activities on the site were in contravention of the Township’s zoning by-law and issued a notice of violation.
Since then, the property owners, Josif and Lidia Catana, submitted applications for an Official Plan (OP) amendment and zone change, proposing that the facility be recognized as an On-Farm Diversified Use (OFDU).
“The applicants went out, got the studies and the reports that were required, completed, hired some representation, and they’ve now submitted the Official Plan amendment and zone change application that we’re here to discuss today,” said Dustin Robson, the Township’s Development Planner. “Both applications are proposing to legalize the existing special events facility on site.”
Robson said that according to the application, the facility has a maximum capacity of 250 people, but that it has been indicated that general weddings on site have been between 160 to 180 people.
“As part of this application, they would like to also allow for other events at the facility, like retreats, workshops and corporate events,” he said. “According to the plan justification report, the workshops and retreats would have less people than a wedding generally would, and they’ve indicated that they do not have permanent workers on site.”
Robson also noted that having circulated the issue to several departments and agencies, there have been comments received in regards to permits and fire safety. He also added that since the application has been received, staff have received three letters from members of the public, one in favour and two against.
The planner said that in terms of staff’s analysis, according to the provincial planning statement, the intent is to protect agricultural land, especially prime agricultural land, for agricultural purposes.
“When we say ‘prime agricultural land,’ we’re talking about soil classes of one to three,” said Robson. “In this case, the majority is class two, and it also permits for agriculture-related use, and what’s called an on-farm diversified use as well.”
According to the report, “agriculture-related uses” means “those farm-related commercial and farm-related industrial uses that are directly related to farm operations in the area, support agriculture, benefit from being in close proximity to farm operations, and provide direct products and/or services to farm operations as a primary activity.”
As well, the report states that “on-farm diversified uses” means “uses that are secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property and are limited in area. On-farm diversified uses include, but are not limited to, home occupations, home industries, agri-tourism uses, uses that produce value-added agricultural products, and electricity generation facilities and transmission systems, and energy storage systems.”
Robson continued to say that in 2016, the province provided a guideline for permitted uses within prime agricultural lands, and that as part of the document there is a list of uses not typically permitted as OFD use.
“Two of those are uses with high water and sewage needs, or, that generate significant traffic, such as large food processors, distribution centres, full scale restaurants and banquet halls,” he said. “It also includes large-scale, recurring events with permanent structures. In staff’s opinion, while not listed as a banquet hall, there are similar tendencies between what is being proposed here. and when you look at the fact that from May to September, events are generally occurring each weekend, we would say that that’s a recurring event with permanent structures, so in our opinion, it’s very similar to a banquet hall.”
Robson also noted that Oxford County itself recently updated its agricultural policies in the OP, which included some additional policies for OFD use.
“Generally, OFDUs should use no more than two per cent of the land use, up to two acres; the structures associated with the OFDU shall be about 557 metre square, which is about 6,000 square feet. It also limits the number of people working at the facility who live off site to two,” he said. “The intent of this is to ensure that the uses are small-scale, and supplements the owner’s income as a farmer. One of the most important policies that we included in our OP update is a policy that specifically says that ‘special events facilities shall not be permitted as an OFDU.’”
While he continued to say that the positive side to all of this is that the Catana’s are using less than two per cent of the land for the special events facility, that it isn’t interrupting farming, and that it’s using the same access as the single detached dwelling, in regards to the proposal, the buildings on the property far exceed the permitted size for an OFDU.
Robson said that between the size of the buildings, contracted workers on site throughout the season, noise complaints and the fact the special event facilities are not included for OFDU, Township staff recommended that the applications should not be supported.
Following the presentation, Pierre Chauvin, a planner and partner with MHBC, who was representing the Catana’s during the meeting, provided photos of the property for Council, specifically pointing out the flower arrangements.
“This is very important, because that’s what makes this [place] unique. They grow all the floral arrangements and flowers on-site in their greenhouses, and they display them at their wedding events,” said Chauvin. “And that’s what makes this particular venue special. It is a form of retaining value in the agricultural commodity of flowers. …It is actually retaining that value, and exhibiting it and reusing it on site.”
Chauvin also noted that the events facility does not replace or interfere with the farm’s core agricultural function of growing flowers and therefore, should be seen as a permitted, secondary use under OFDU guidelines.
“This [events facility] is secondary,” he said. “The prime use [of the property] will continue to be agriculture 365 days a year, [except] for these 20 weekends throughout the summer when we’re having these wedding events.”
Following the rest of his speaking opportunity and some questions from councillors regarding capacity issues, structures and permits, farmland use, the house and its bridal suites, as well as lighting and noise complaints, two residents also had the opportunity to speak to their personal experiences and their concerns.
“Mr. Catana is a professional developer who deals with zoning and by-laws regularly. He knew his A2 farmland was not zoned for commercial use, but has ignored the zoning by-laws,” said one neighbour. “His website states that there is only one Saturday night left to be booked for the mid-October season. Mr. Catana’s application proposes use that in no way relates to farming and shows a total lack of respect to the local rural community. Years previous, Mr. Catana had offered to buy our property for considerably less than market value, maybe we should have sold.”
“The noise levels can be heard with the windows closed, and the lighting they use lights up the whole section of Blenheim Road and Township Roads 7 and 8,” added another neighbour. “It is like a city block lit up with power lights that radiate across the two fields which separate us and light up the entire sky above them. There’s no reason why we should have to close our windows to be able to live in our homes and close our blind to shut out the bright lights to accommodate their business.”
Councillor Bruce Banbury later said that although he felt like it was a great operation and an asset in the municipality, he felt bad for the neighbours, and that if they approved the changes, they would be setting a precedent for others.
“My issue is by approving this zone change, we’re sending the message to the general public that any person with entrepreneurial ambition, can go out and set up an operation, spend all sorts of money and set up a beautiful operation with no permits, no zone changes or anything, and then come and beg for forgiveness so we can make a zone change,” he said. “…I’m all for rural economic development, but I just don’t like setting that precedent.”
Councillor Nancy Demarest, said they were dealing with the balance of business, and doing the right thing.
“Our voice was heard in a strong way when Oxford County was considering the ag policy that they put in place.” she said. “Our perspective is that, yes, we want to support rural business, and yes, we want to work with the entrepreneurial community to help get the right policies in place, but we also want to do that in a sustainable and responsible way. …At the end of the day, this is not secondary farm use, it’s primary use. It’s a non-agricultural commercial use, which is subject to much stricter criteria than what we even talked about here today.”
Mayor Mark Peterson, as well as Councillors Tina Young and Daryl Barnes, also had similar sentiments, all mentioned that while they were supportive of local businesses, it just didn’t comply with the OP, and that they would be supporting Robson’s recommendation to deny the applications.
Council then voted to advise the Oxford County Council that the Township of Blandford-Blenheim did not support the application to the Official Plan amendment. Council also voted against the Zoning application to have the Catana Estates lands changed from ‘General Agricultural Zone (A2) to “Special General Agricultural Zone (A2-sp) in order to permit a special event facility as an OFDU.
Kimberly De Jong’s reporting is funded by the Canadian government through its Local Journalism Initiative.The funding allows her to report rural and agricultural stories from Blandford-Blenheim and Brant County. Reach her at kimberly.dejong@brantbeacon.ca.
